Royal Oak To Require $1 Million ‘Dangerous Dog’ Insurance

"Royal Oak is about to unleash new regulations on dog owners. The new rules, which go into effect Thursday, require owners of “dangerous dogs” to carry $1 million in liability insurance, post signs, complete an obedience class with the dog, and keep the dog in a locked, fenced-in area. Owners must also comply with seven pages worth of other requirements to keep their pets in the city."

We have a Constitution. We have the right to own private property, which includes a dog (which is why I oppose current legal efforts to change ownership into guardianship, since that affects what you can and can't do with your dog). Thus, the government can't just put restrictions on the ownership of things without a reasonableness test... and I don't think this is reasonable... and therefore it can be challenged on Constitutional grounds and probably beaten. It is the same as requiring someone to have $1,000,000 in liability insurance to exercise their free speech, to vote, to own a gun, or in case you might decide to own slaves. This fight will cost the city a lot of money. It is effectively a ban on private ownership of dogs, based on a messy, long dog bite law that will have to support this requirement for each and every sentence and clause.

For example, a nip is different than a bite. A provoked bite is different than an accidental bite. A bite from a Chihuahua is different than a bite from a St Bernard. Do all of these require $1 million in insurance and all 7 pages of these other requirements? No way.

See: When Should It Be OK For A Dog To Bite?